Maybe NOW we can stop fighting the Civil War?

[Bicycle Bill]

Irene Triplett, last person to collect an American Civil War pension, dies at 90

The last person to receive a US government pension from the American civil war has died.  Irene Triplett was 90 when she died last Sunday in Wilkesboro, North Carolina.

Her father, Mose Triplett, fought for both the Confederacy and the Union in the Civil War, which began in 1861 and ended with the surrender by General Robert E. Lee in 1865.  Her father became eligible for the pension after defecting to the Union in 1863 after missing the battle of Gettysburg, the turning point of the war.

According to a Wall Street Journal article in 2014, “Private Triplett enlisted in the 53rd North Carolina Infantry Regiment in May 1862,” citing Confederate records which showed he was then 16.  And Triplett “transferred to the 26th North Carolina Infantry Regiment early the following year”, “fell ill as his regiment marched north” and then “ran away from the hospital ... while his unit suffered devastating losses at Gettysburg”.  Records confirm that out of the roughly 800 members in the regiment, 734 fell at the Battle of Gettysburg.

A deserter, Triplett “made his way to Tennessee and, in 1864, enlisted in ... the 3rd North Carolina Mounted Infantry”, Kirk’s Raiders, which “carried out a campaign of sabotage against Confederate targets”.

He applied for his Union pension twenty years after the war. He was still childless and in his late 70s when he married Elida Hall (his second marriage), a woman more than 40 years younger than himself in 1924, and was 83 years of age in 1930 when his daughter was born.  He eventually fathered five children before his death in 1938; Elida herself passed on in 1975.

Of the five children only two, Irene and an older brother, Everette (who died in 1996), survived.  Irene was born with mental disabilities later diagnosed as cognitive impairments, qualifying her for the lifelong pension as a helpless adult child of a veteran.  She was receiving $73.13 per month (or $877.56 annually) from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

-"BB"-

[RayThom]

... He was still childless and in his late 70s when he married Elida Hall (his second marriage), a woman more than 40 years younger than himself in 1924, and was 83 years of age in 1930 when his daughter was born.  He eventually fathered five children before his death in 1938; Elida herself passed on in 1975.

I'm betting Elida's "man friend" was probably 40 years younger than Mose, too.

Hey, jes sayin',

[Long Run]

Fletcher : He's has got the first move. And I'd tell him.

Josey Wales : What's that?

Fletcher : That the war is over.

Josey Wales : I reckon we all lost a little bit in that damn war.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Nit-picking time.

The war did not end with Lee's surrender, April 9, 1865. The last Confederate army to surrender was actually that of Brigadier General Stand Watie, leading a mixed force of Cherokee, Creek, Osake and Seminole troops. And the CSS Shenandoah did not surrender until August 1865.

But the war ended in August 1866. "After President Johnson accepted Texas’ new constitution—which provided limited civil rights for blacks but refused to ratify the 13th Amendment, on the grounds that the abolition of slavery was already federal law—statewide elections were held in June. On August 9, the conservative Unionist James Webb Throckmorton was inaugurated as governor. (He would be removed from office the following year, due to his resistance to Reconstruction.)

On August 20, 1866, in acknowledgement of Texas’ new state government, Johnson was able to finally proclaim that “said insurrection is at an end and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist in and throughout the whole United States of America.” His proclamation may have meant that the Civil War, by any definition, was finally over—but the arduous process of Reconstruction was only beginning"

The 26th NC, while having the largest (real bad) losses of any rebel unit at Gettysburg had a strength of 839, lost 588 in Herbst's Woods (now Reynold's Woods) and then perhaps another 99 in Pickett's (so-called) charge. So, 687 out of 839 loss ratio is 81.9%. So they say.

[Guinevere]

Gorgeous photo taken at the Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond, VA. The monument and others on monument drive are scheduled to be taken down as soon as possible (now subject to an injunction to keep them in place pending a court challenge to the removal).

[Darren]

Gorgeous photo taken at the Robert E. Lee Monument in Richmond, VA. The monument and others on monument drive are scheduled to be taken down as soon as possible (now subject to an injunction to keep them in place pending a court case).

The plaintiff is related to one of the original donors of money for the Robert E. Lee Monument. That may not affect the other monuments. I find it interesting that monuments are being vandalized no matter which side of the slavery issue the memorialized person or group defended.

Out of sight, out of mind.

[BoSoxGal]

Robert E. Lee is my ancestor. Take down his statue, and let his cause be lost.

By Robert W. Lee IV
June 7, 2020 at 8:30 a.m. EDT
Robert W. Lee IV is the pastor of Unifour Church and author of the book “A Sin by Any Other Name: Reckoning With Racism and the Heritage of the South.”

In the small town where I live and grew up, the Lost Cause of the Confederacy didn’t need a special name — it was the education we all received. We were taught that during the Civil War, the Confederate States of America had just motive. Perhaps you’ve heard the mantra: “The Civil War was fought for states’ rights.” It was enshrined in monuments across the country after the war ended.
The catch is that there’s more to that sentence, something we southerners are never taught: The Civil War was fought for states’ rights to enslave African people in the United States of America.

Many of us were never taught the rest of the sentence and are forced to discover it for ourselves, but my reality is unique amid the landscape of southern identity. My name is Robert W. Lee: I’m a Christian pastor, a husband, a friend, a son, a brother. But you undoubtedly realize that I bear the name of the icon of the Southern understanding of the world, and I also bear his heritage.

As a descendant of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee’s family, I have borne the weight and responsibility of that lineage. Even though my parents never pushed it or subscribed to all that it could entail, my own upbringing oozed with Southern pride. I had a black nanny — even in the 1990s — and a Confederate flag that hung in my bedroom until middle school. I believed that in commanding the Army of Northern Virginia, Lee was a Christian man with the best of intentions.

But today I am proud to be part of a new era for the South and the country. And on Thursday, I was present with Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) and Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax (D) as they announced the intent of the commonwealth to remove the iconic statue of Lee on Richmond’s Monument Avenue.

I am fully aware that the broken, racist system we have built on the Lost Cause is far larger than a single statue, but the statue of my ancestor has stood for years in Richmond as an idol of this white supremacist mind-set. The statue is a hollow reminder of a painful ideology and acts of oppression against black people. Taking it down will provide new opportunities for conversations, relationships and policy change.

Many of my fellow Southerners are afraid that if we remove Confederate monuments, we will forget the legacy of Lee and our Southern heritage. If we are honest with ourselves, many of those fears are anxiety about a shifting way of life, a loss of a certain understanding.

Others of us have worked for generations to escape the scorn my family — and the Lost Cause mythology — has brought upon the nation. And for many of us, removing the statue of Lee was a culmination of years of work. For me, this symbolic gesture stands at the start of a new way of life in the South, a new cause that could replace the Lost Cause mentality if we get this right.

The new cause of this country is about justice, equality, peace and concord. We can and must be different. Now is the time to make this new cause the hope of this upcoming generation of activists. We can give the gift of Southern hospitality and community instead of passing on a pseudo-historical and oppressive understanding of the world.

To rest when symbols of oppression fall is to have only done a portion of the work. I have often lain awake at night wondering if I did the right thing in criticizing my uncle, or in supporting the statue’s removal, or in trying to move past the Lost Cause. I doubted — as all white people do — that this was my battle to fight. But even if that doubt was momentary, it shows that I have more work to do. We must begin anew each morning to redeem the world and atone for the past.

The work continues, and the new cause begins.

[RayThom]

Similarly, here in Philly the family of the former racist, homophobic, police commissioner and mayor, Frank Rizzo, are bitching and moaning that they were blindsided by, and had no say in, the recent removal of the mostly hated Rizzo statue -- across from City Hall -- and the paint-over of a mural of Rizzo's dour countenance at the Italian Market.

No pre-notice to family? To that I say BULLSHIT. Rizzo will always be a stain upon the historic struggle for human rights and, as such, the City has no obligation to notify living relatives, regardless of any vested interests -- monetary, or otherwise.

It's a start. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The Cisco Kid's brand of Law and Order:

[Joe Guy]

The last Confederate army to surrender was actually that of Brigadier General Stand Watie, leading a mixed force of Cherokee, Creek, Osake and Seminole troops.

Was his name Stand Andy Waitee?

Kinda makes sense.

[MajGenl.Meade]

No, that was the Chinese general you're thinking of

[Long Run]

No, that was the Chinese general you're thinking of

Tso, what?

[ex-khobar Andy]

My nephrologist (kidney doc) is Dr Robert E Lee. He's actually a good guy; takes all the time you need unlike some docs who seem to have one eye on their watch because they know that your insurance allows them 4 minutes and 19 seconds; and no, I've never asked him about his name.

[ex-khobar Andy]

There is a piece by Gen David Petraeus in The Atlantic about army bases named after Confederate generals. I'll just quote one paragraph below about what he calls 'rebel forts' he had served at. I had no idea. Why in the world would the army name so many installations after defeated enemy commanders? Might it have been part of some sort of reconciliation effort? Seems really weird to me. I don't think that a British base might be named after Napoleon or Rommel, despite their military competence and/or personal bravery. Petraeus' suggestion is that they be renamed which seems like a no-brainer to me.

My life in uniform essentially unfolded at a series of what might be termed “rebel forts.” I made many parachute jumps with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, and I also jumped with 82nd Airborne paratroopers at Fort Pickett, in Virginia (a National Guard post), and Fort Polk, in Louisiana. I made official visits to Virginia’s Forts Pickett and Lee, to Texas’s Fort Hood, and to Alabama’s Fort Rucker.* In Georgia, I visited Fort Gordon, and I attended Airborne School, Ranger School, and the Infantry Officer Basic Course—rites of passage for countless infantry soldiers—at Fort Benning.

[BoSoxGal]

Yes it was a reconciliation effort. Now it is long past time for the losers of the Civil War to pull up their big person panties and get over it.

[Big RR]

Andy--I agree with BSG, it was an attempt at reconciliation, but also a recognition that these were American officers, usually trained at West Point, and who many times distinguished themselves in US service; it's more like statues of William Wallace in the UK (even though he fought against England and that union) than Napoleon, and probably with more reasons behind it.

I think people are a lot more complex than a sound bite, and that saying someone chose to fight for their state of the Confederacy solely to defend slavery or that system could well be a misstatement (just like saying those who fought for the Union were fighting to end it). I have no problem with taking down civil war statues because they are offensive to same (and often were erected exactly because they were), but I reject the character assassination of those immortalized in bronze to the single sound bite of choosing to enslave people.

I have read a lot about Robert E Lee and he is far more complex than the sound bite suggests; his choice to fight for the state of Virginia because he owed the state his allegiance is completely foreign to me (I live in New Jersey and would never take up arms to defend it, although I may well take up arms with my fellow residents to expel an invading power--I don't see the state as anything but a paper organization, but Lee saw Virginia as different and something he chose to defend, right or wrong). People may choose not to honor or celebrate or even respect him, but reducing his position to a simple sound bite is, IMHO, character assassination.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Rightly said, Big RR. The war of the rebellion is what determined whether citizens owed their allegiance first to their state or to the union of states. In a word, "these" became "this". The war was fought over the right of states to secede but the precipitating cause - the specific issue that brought about the attempted break in the compact - was slavery. And the irreconcilable problem about THAT was the admission to the Union of new states in which slavery would never be an economic success. That in turn meant that the slave states saw the writing on the wall; their Constitutional rights (to "own" human beings) would be lost in a Congress they would no longer control (or at least neutralize).

People like Lee, products of their times and places, not ours, were able to set aside the "issue" of slavery and base their allegiance solely upon the decision of their state to secede or not. Virginia (and others) only seceded when their "sister states" were "invaded" by the Federal army. Lee was not, to his way of thinking, fighting FOR slavery but AGAINST a central government that invaded states which had freely chosen to withdraw from the union.

Specious to us; wrong to us; wrong to Lincoln and so on. But it took years and hundreds of thousands of lives to settle the matter. And the matter was not racial relations but Union.

That's why the war goes on - because it wasn't begun by either side to create a more perfect Union. It was all about whether there was a Union or not. "Not" lost. Nothing else (except the end of chattel slavery) was settled at all. Finishing the job seems like a great idea. The time has come.

[ex-khobar Andy]

While reading some background material on this general topic I came across this. Philippe Pétain was the Vichy Prime Minister who was condemned to death for treason at the end of WW2. The sentence was never carried out because he was a genuine war hero for his actions during WW1 when he held out long enough for the Doughboys to arrive, and he died in prison.

In 1931 Pétain was given a ticker tape parade in NYC for his Great War actions. As was normal, a commemorative brass strip was placed on the pavement. (His name is misspelled.). Of course there are now those who want this removed. This to me just shows how complex this whole issue of removing monuments and renaming things has become. I think I'm in favor of retaining it. He was given the parade; it was probably right to do so at the time; and although he no longer has his good name the event - the parade - happened.

[BoSoxGal]

Monuments are removed all the time, progress marches on inexorably and entire communities have been razed and the people displaced for highways and shopping malls.

History will always live in history books. I really don’t get the passionate devotion to monuments. The vast majority of people who step over Monsiuer Pétain’s will neither absorb nor remember his name from that encounter.

[Big RR]

Meade--

[re the right to secede] Specious to us; wrong to us; wrong to Lincoln and so on. But it took years and hundreds of thousands of lives to settle the matter.

While I agree it was settled by the war, I still don't agree that the right to secede is specious or wrong. The might of the union military settled the question, but I still think secession is a valid option for states/regions/persons not served by the federal government. Indeed, I think many of us would like to have that option open to us now.

I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of the right whether a right to secede exists/it does not (and even a constitutional amendment may not create such a right if the majority sought to oppose a secession militarily as Lincoln did.

All I want to reiterate is that people are not as simple as some would suggest, and that individuals may be done a great disservice to suggest that they are. Remove all the monuments you want, but leave the reputations of the persons out of it unless you are absolutely certain of their position based on their writings etc. Hell, as I recall Grant (well really his wife, but husbands owned their wife's property) owned slaves early in his marriage. (see the attached, it's Wikipedia but it appears to be accurate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ned_slaves)

[Bicycle Bill]

There is a piece by Gen David Petraeus in The Atlantic about army bases named after Confederate generals. I'll just quote one paragraph below about what he calls 'rebel forts' he had served at. I had no idea. Why in the world would the army name so many installations after defeated enemy commanders? Might it have been part of some sort of reconciliation effort? Seems really weird to me. I don't think that a British base might be named after Napoleon or Rommel, despite their military competence and/or personal bravery. Petraeus' suggestion is that they be renamed which seems like a no-brainer to me.

And then there are examples like this — The M-3 "Stuart", a WWII light tank named for Confederate cavalry general James Ewell Brown "Jeb" Stuart.  It might be noted too that Stuart was an officer with the US Army prior to the rebellion, and in fact was aide-de-camp to Robert E. Lee, who was also serving with the US Army as commander of the forces which put down the raid on Harper's Ferry by John Brown.



Changing the names of the bases may be something that needs to be considered at some point in time, but with everything else that we've got to worry about these days, surely changing the names of a handful of military bases or taking down some statues should not be so high on the list now.

-"BB"-